LEGISLATIVE,  EXECUTIVE,  AND  JUDICIAL 

APPROPRIATION  RILL. 


THE  DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  THE  TWO  HOUSES  UPON  THIS  QUESTION. 

SPEECHES  ' 

OF 

HON.  LOT  M.  MORRILL  AMD  HON.  0.  P.. MORTON 

IN  THE  U.  S.  SENATE,  JULY  7,  1870. 


Mr.  MORRILL.  I  vjae  to  present  a  report  of 
the  Uoinnmtee  of  Conference  on  the  disagreeing 
rotes  of  the  two  Houses  on  the  legislative,  exec¬ 
utive  and  judicial  appropriation  bill. 

The  Chief  Clerk  read  the  report,  as  follows: 

The  Committee  of  Conference  on  the  disagreeing 
votes  of  the  two  Houses  on  the  amendments  of  the 
Senate  to  the  bill  (H.  It.  No.  2571)  making  appro¬ 
bations  for  the  legislative,  executive  ami  Judicial 
epartments  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  Jnne  30,  1377,  and  for  other  purposes,  having 
met,  after  full  and  free  conference  have  beenunabl8 
to  agree. 

LOT  M.  MO  KRILL, 

WM.  WIN  DOM, 

R.  E.  WITHERS, 
Managers  on  the  pari  of  the  Senate. 

8AML.  J.  RANDALL, 

OT HO  R.  SINGLETON, 
CHARLES  FOSTER, 
Managers  on  the  part  of  the  Mouse. 

Mr.  MORRILL.  I  will  simply  send  to  the  Chair 
and  ask  that  the  proposition  of  the  conferees  on 
the  part  of  the  Senate  to  the  conferees  on  the 
part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  may  be  read 
at  the  Clerk’s  desk,  and  I  ask  the  attention  of 
the  Senate  to  the  proposition. 

The  Chief  Clerk  read  as  follows: 

The  Committee  ef  Conference  on  the  part  of  the 
Senate  submit  that  as  anything  like  a  Just  and  intel¬ 
ligent  adjustment  of  the  salaries  of  the  employees, 
clerks,  heads  of  bureaus,  chiefs  of  divisions  and  of 
the  subdivisions  of  the  Executive  Departments,  a 
service  at  once  extended  and  diversified,  must  nec¬ 
essarily  Involve  a  critical  and  laborious  examina¬ 
tion  into  its  details  and  duties,  an  undertaking  quite 
impracticable  in  the  last  days  of  a  session  of  Con¬ 
gress,  and  unwise  to  attempt  in  connection  with  an 
appropriation  bill,  the  committee  therefore  propose, 
as  a  concession,  inordertomeetthevlewsofthe  House 
on  the  subject  of  appropriations  for  the  salaries, 
that  the  Senate  will  recede  from  lt3  amendments  lo 
the  bill  of  the  House  in  this  respect,  and  remit  the 
question  of  the  revision  and  adjustment  of  the  same 
to  a  joint  committee  of  four,  two  of  whom  shall  he 
appointed  by  the  presiding  officer  of  each  House, 
whose  duty  It  shall  be  to  revise  and  adjust  the  sala¬ 
ries,  having  due  regard  to  a  just  publiceconomy  and 
the  efficiency  of  the  service,  and  make  report  of 
their  doing  therein  on  the  first  day  of  the  next  ses¬ 
sion  of  Congress:  And  provided.  That  any  change 
made  in  said  salaries  by  Congress  upon  said  report 
shall  take  effect  from  the  1st  day  of  July,  1876,  and  all 
persons  who  6hall  be  affected  thereby  and  who  shall 
continue  in  the  servico  shall  be  deemed  to  have  ac¬ 
cepted  the  terms  hereof  and  acquiesced  therein. 

Rut  the  Senate  cannot,  having  rffi^ard  to  its  con¬ 
stitutional  rights  and  duties  as  a  co-ordinate  branch 
of  the  legislative  department  of  the  Government, 
assent  to  the  changes  In  the  existing  law  that  It  be¬ 
lieves  to  be  pernicious  as  the 'price  of  securing  ap¬ 
propriations  necessary  to  carry  on  the  operations  of 
the  Government  under  the  laws  as  they  now  exist. 
And  upon  the  same  principle  the  Senate  does  not  de¬ 
mand  that  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  vote 
to  appropriate  any  money,  even  to  meet  the  legal 
obligations  of  the  United  States,  that  the  House  may 
feel  it  to  be  its  duty  to  refuse;  thus  leaving  to  each 
House  absolute  independence  in  respect  of  acceding 
or  not  acceding  to  new  provisions  of  law  that  it  be¬ 
lieves  to  be  unwise. 

And  the  committee  further  submit  that  the  Senate 
will  recede  from  its  amendments  to  the  Mouse 


amendments  on  the  reduction  of  the  civil  list  in  the 
Executive  Departments  of  clerks  and  employees, 
and  agree  to  any  amendments  which  shall  reduce 
the  number  one^half  that  proposed  by  the  bill  of  the 
House,  observing  in  such  reduction  the  exercise  of 
such  discrimination  as  to  the  needs  of  the  service  in 
the  several  subdivisions  thereof  as  a  careful  exami¬ 
nation  of  the  same  may  indicate. 

Mr.  MORRILL.  Air.  President,  I  move  that 
the  Senate  further  insist  upon  its  amendments 
and  agree  to  the  further  conference  asked  by  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  if  it  is  the  desire 
of  the  Senate  I  will  make  some  observations  in 
regard  to  the  attitude  of  the  two  Houses  upon  this 
great  bill  touching  the  entire  civil  service  of  the 
country  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  it. 

I  begin  by  saying  that  the  Oommittee  on  Ap¬ 
propriations  of  the  Senate  from  the  outset  have 
been  disposed,  in  great  sincerity  and  candor  and 
with  alacrity,  t*  meet  every  honest  disposition  on 
the  part  of  the  House  ot  Representatives  for  re¬ 
trenchment  of  the  public  expenditures,  as  I  am 
sure  every  member  of  that  committee  will  bear 
me  out  in  saying,  and  as  I’certainly  in  turn  will 
say  of  every  member  of  that  committee  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Chamber,  and  I  am  sure  that 
those  who  have  observed  the  temper  of  the  Senate 
will  agree  that  no  other  feeling  or  disposition  has 
at  any  time  been  manifested  except  to" meet  every 
just  demand  for  retrenchment  which  is  consistent 
with  the  public  service. 

Now  let  us  see  what  the  precise  points  of  the 
difference  between  the  two  Houses  are  upon  this 
question.  The  House  of  Representatives  sent  this 
particular  bill  to  the  Senate,  covering  the  entire 
civil  service  of  the  Executive  Departments,  with 
certain  amendments:  first,  an  amendment  touch¬ 
ing  the  compensation  of  this  service  and  a  change 
in  the  law  in  that  respect,  and,  secondly,  a  very 
large  numerical  reduction  of  the  civil  list.  Those 
were  the  twa  fundamental  propositions.  The  bill 
came  from  the  House  of  Representatives  at  the 
end  of  six  months  to  be  considered  by  the  Senate. 
To  investigate  a  question  so  broad  as  anything 
like  an  Intelligent  and  just  consideration  of  the 
salaries  would  Involve  very  great  labor,  very 
careful  and  exact  consideration  and  detail,  and  a 
great  deal  of  time.  Now,  consider  that  at  the  end 
of  these  six  months  the  Senate  was  expected  to 
consider  and  pass,  or  pass  without  consideration, 
the  principal  appropriation  bills  for  carrying  on 
the  Government.  That  is  the  predicament  in 
which  the  Senate  found  itself  at  the  end  of  six 
months  of  the  session  of  Congress. 

What  was  to  be  done  on  the  first  proposition  by 
your  committee?  By  the  exercise  or, the  only 
function  it  is  presumed  to  have,  and  the  only  real 
function  it  really  has,  it  was  to  consider,  first, 
what  the  service  was,  as  established  by  law,  and 
to  provide  for  it;  and  if  we  had  had  any  other 
function,  that  was  the  only  practicable  one  at  the 
late  hour  at  which  ti. is  bill  came  to  us.  *  *  * 

I  am  stating  the  diifimlty  your  Oommittee  on 
Appropriations  found  in  the  beginning.  It  was  to 
enter  upon  the  task  of  arranging  the  salaries  of 
the  entire  civil  service  in  the  Executive  Depart¬ 
ments  of  the  (lovernment,  and  that,  in  the  last 
month,  it  was  to  be  hoped.,  of  the  session.  If  there 


N 


2 


were  no  question  of  law  or  parliamentary  usage 
to  control  a  matter  of  that  sort,  is  it  not  obvious 
that  such  a  task  as  that  could  not  be  undert  aken? 
But  your  committee  had  no  option  about  it.  It 
had  no  right  whatever  to  consider  a  question  of  a 
change  of  salaries.  Its  duty,  and  its  whole  duty, 
having  charge  of  making  appropriations  for  the 
service  of  the  Government,  was  done  when  it  had 
ascertained  what  the  service  was  and  the  amount 
of  appropriations  demanded  for  it  in  order  to 
comply  with  the  requirements  of  law.  That  was 
the  sum  total,  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  its 
whole  duty,  and  anything  else  than  that  was  a 
usurpation  of  the  legislative  functions  of  this 
body.  Therefore  the  committee  had  nothing  to 
do  but  to  place  that  compensation  where  the  law 
had  placed  it.  and  report  the  bill  back  to  the 
Senate.  I  believe  the  Senate  divided  upon  that 
whole  subject  but  once,  upon  one  single  proposi¬ 
tion,  thereby  approving,  as  the  committee  had  a 
right  to  believe  and  did  believe,  the  proposition 
that  it  was  not  the  function  of  an  Appropriation 
Committee  to  change  the  law,  but  to  appropriate 
in  obedience  to  it  was  the  obvious  duty  of  the 
committee. 

W 8  are  met  in  conference  upon  the  ground  that 
the  House  of  Representatives  does  not  agree  to 
the  proposition  of  the  Senate  to  place  these  sala¬ 
ries  in  harmony  with  the  obligations  of  the  law 
and  the  public  service  as  established  by  law,  but 
it  will  put  its  judgment  and  hat  against  the  Sen¬ 
ate  and  against  the  law;  it  is  insisted  that  it  pos¬ 
sesses  that  omnipotence  which  is  peculiar  to  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  which  practically  consti¬ 
tutes  the  House  of  Commons  the  Parliament,  and 
makes  the  Senate  “  the  effete  .Lords  of  Great 
Britain.”  That  is  where  we  are.  An  appropria¬ 
tion  committee  has  come  to  mean  the  will  oi  one 
branch  of  Congress  and  but  one,  and  on  a  question 
of  that  sort  there  is  no  co-ordinate  branch;  and 
that  is  the  attitude  in  which  the  Senate  is  placed, 
and  upon  such  ground  as  that  conference  is  im¬ 
practicable  conference  is  impossible  because 
there  is  and  there  can  be  but  one  party  to  such  a 
question. 

Now,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  this  complication,  let 
us  see  what  the  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Sen¬ 
ate  proposed.  The  House  on  the  first  conference, 
as  I  said  on  a  former  occasion,  refused  to  concur 
with  the  Senate  in  placing  the  compensation  in 
harmony  with  the  law.  They  wouid  appropriate 
no  more.  Very  well.  It  must  be  seen  that  in  or¬ 
der  to  get  a  conclusion  there  must  be  concessions 
on  one  side  or  the  other.  .The  Senate  could  not 
recede  from  its  amendments  and  take  the  action 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  changing  by  ab¬ 
solute  iaw  the  entire  salaries  in  the  whole  civil 
service  in  the  Executive  Departments.  The  Sen¬ 
ate  could  not  do  that;  especially  the  Senate  could 
not  do  that  if  demanded  as  the  price  of  any  ap¬ 
propriation  at  all.  To  do  that  was  to  concede 
that  we  were  no  longer  a  co-ordinate  branch  of 
the  legislative  department  of  the  Government. 
It  was  abdication,  as  my  honorable  friend  sitting 
near  me  [Mr.  Sherman]  says,  absolute  abdica¬ 
tion.  Well,  if  adhered  to  -it  is  revolution.  As 
ion v  as  the  House  of  Representatives  simply  in¬ 
sists  we  are  to  confer;  but  when  the  Rouse  of 
Representatives  gets  so  far  that  it  adheres,  it  is 
revolution.  That  is  what  it  is,  absolute  revolu¬ 
tion.  It  is  a  defiance  of  the  law,  and  that  is  revo¬ 
lution  in  this  country.  I  maintain  that  in  the 
Senate,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  or  out  of 
it,  the  rule  of  right  for  our  action  here  or  else¬ 
where  is  the  law,  and  it  is  equally  obligatory  on 
all;  and  whoever  rebels  against  it  is  revolution¬ 
ary. 

What  then  did  we  propose?  The  House  will 
appropriate  no  more  than  a  certain  portion  for  this 
compensation.  We  said,  “We  will  take  it,  gen¬ 
tlemen.”  “Well,  but  there  will  be  a  claim  for 
the  balance.”  “Certainly  there  will.”  “Well, 
we  shall  be  open  to  suit.”  Certainly  you  will, 
because  this  civil  service  is  no  myt  h.  It  is  a  real¬ 
ity;  it  Is  an  entity.  While  it  performs  its  duties 
it  has  its  claims  upon  the  Government  as  sacred 
as  any  right.  It  has  a  right  to  the  compensa¬ 
tions  that  are  fixed  by  law  until  they  are  chauged 
by  the  concurrent  action  of  the  two  branches  of 
Congress,  with  this  assent  of  the  .President;  and 
either  branch  that  undertakes  to  innovate  upon 
that  basts  gives  the  civil  service  tv  remedy  against, 


f 

the  Treasury  of  the  United  States.  Now,  how 
should  such  a  complication  as  that  be  cut  ?  The 
House  would  not  yield,  would  not  appropriate 
any  more  money;  the  Senate  would  not  yield  to 
the  House  to  change  the  salaries.  What,  then, 
should  be  done  ? 

The  Seriate  conferees,  in  order  to  make  a  con¬ 
cession  which  would  relieve  the  House  from  the 
appropriation  of  any  more  money,  and  in  order  to 
relieve  the  Senate  from  the  embarrassment  in 
which  the  House  amendment  changing  the  sala¬ 
ries  had  placed  it,  and  maintain  its  own  charac¬ 
ter  and  its  own  independence  as  a  co-ordinate 
branch  of  the  Government,  said,  “We  will  do 
this:  we  will  take  what  you  appropriate;  but  on 
the  question  what  the  salaries  shall  be  for  this 
particular  year  and  for  all  the  future,  so  far  as 
we  are  concerned,  we  will  remit  that  question  to 
a  committee  of  four  appointed  by  the  presiding 
officers  of  the  respective  branches,  who  shall  re¬ 
vise  and  adjust  the  whole  question  of  compensa¬ 
tion  covered  by  this  bill;  and,  Congress  enacting 
it,  that  shall  no  tne  compensation  for  this  year.” 
Is  that  fair?  Is  that  a  reasonable  proposition ? 
Can  any  Senator  rise  here  and  tell  this*  commit¬ 
tee  if  he  can,  pray  instruct  them,  or  some  other 
committee,  what  is  to  be  done  in  this  difficulty 
consistent  with  the  integrity  of  both  branches  of 
Congress,  consistent  with  the  views  of  economy 
which  they  present  to  us  on  the  part  of  the  House, 
and  also  consistent  with  our  own  prerogative  or 
our  own  character  as  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States? 

You  will  see,  Mr.  President,  that  instead  of  un¬ 
dertaking  to  arrange  the  salaries  ourselves,  which 
is  an  impossibility,  If  we  were  to  try  It  at  thi3 
period  of  the  session,  instead  of  taking  these  sal¬ 
aries  from  the  House  of  Representatives  and 
changing  the  law,  we  say  to  them,  “Let  the 
whGle  subject  be  revised,  and  whatever  ahall  be 
the  judgment  of  Congress  upon  that  revision,  the 
report  being  made  on  the  first  day  of  the  next 
session,  that  shall  be  the  law  and  that  shall'  be 
the  compensation.”  Provision  is  made  in  this 
proposition  to  the  end  that  all  persons  in  the 
civil  service  shall  take  notice  of  the  fact  that  we 
are  revising  the  salaries,  and  if  they  continue  in 
office  up  to  the  time  when  the  change  is  made  the 
changed  compensation  shall  be  that  which  they 
shall  receive. 

If  more  can  be  done  consistent  with  the  integ¬ 
rity  of  this  body,  let  some  man  here  proclaim  it. 
So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  with  every  disposition 
to  make  houorable  and  just  concessions  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  only  anxious  to 
uard  against  the  perils  of  an  assumption  which 
enies  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  the 
rights  of  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Government 
on  questions  of  this  sort,  1  have  done  the  utmost 
in  my  power  to  conciliate  and  to  concede  every¬ 
thing  tnat  would  bring  us  to  a  conclusion. 

So  much  for  the  first  part.  The  next  proposi¬ 
tion  was  the  reduction  of  the  numerical  force. 
The  House  of  Representatives  propose  to  reduce 
that  force  twelve  hundred.  I  appeal  to  my  asso¬ 
ciates  on  the  committee  if  they  do  not  believe  we 
all  acted  In  perfect,  good  faith  and  with  a  desire 
to  meet  the  House  of  Representatives  at  the  very 
lowest  figure  consistent  with  the  public  service. 
The  committee  came  to  the  conclusion  that  some¬ 
thing  like  a  third  of  the  proposed  reduction  was 
all  that  the  public  service  would  bear  without 
being  crippled.  I  desire  that  the  Senate  should 
understand  how  we  got  at  that.  It  was  by  no 
guess.  In  the  first  place  this  committee  has  some 
experience  on  this  subject.  Year  after  year  since 
the  war  was  over,  since  it  became  necessary  to 
curtail  the  ‘expenditures  of  the  Government,  it 
has  been  our  annual,  obvious,  and  exigent  neces¬ 
sity  to  examine  into  this  service  in  detail.  We 
think  we  know  something  about  it;  but  we  are 
not  apt  scholars,  perhaps.  However,  with  that 
knowledge  which  we  have,  we  made  application 
to  the  beads  of  the  Departments  and  Bureaus 
having  this  great  duty  in  charge,  requiring  them 
to  institute  a  careful  Inspection  into  the  whole 
service  and  to  report  to  the  committee  the  lowest 
figure  to  which  that  service  could  he  reduced  with 
a  view  of  meeting  the  House  of  Representatives 
as  far  as  was  practicable,  consistent  with  the  pub¬ 
lic  welfare. 

Thereby  we  reached  the  conclusion  previously 


y  A 


3 


n 

! 


3 


Jr 


% 


/ 


stated.  But  hero  is  the  disagreement.  The  bills 
must  be  passed  in  some  way  ny  some  mutual  con¬ 
cession.  The  House  of  Representatives  stands 
on  a  reduction  of  twelve  hundred,  which  is  one 
fourth  of  the  entire  service,  and  the  Senate  on  its 
judgment,  backed  by  the  authorities  at  the  head 
of  this  service,  stands  on  one  fourth  of  that.  What 
is  to  be  done?  This  last  preposition  meets  the 
House  of  Representatives  half  way.  Why?  It  is 
better  that  the  public  service  should  sutler  some¬ 
what  than  to  encounter  the  perils  which  will  come 
from  a  disagreement  on  this  subject;  and  there¬ 
fore,  although  it  is  the  judgment  of  your  confer¬ 
ees  that  this  concession  will  to  some  extent  injure 
the  public  service,  will  involve  a  good  deal  of  dif¬ 
ficulty  first  and  last,  yet  on  the  whole  it  is  best  to 
make’  that  concession,  distributing  it.  carefully 
over  the  various  departments,  and  take  the  conse’- 
quences,  whatever  they  are.  How  is  that  received? 
Absolutely  rejected.  The  Senate  will  judge  what 
is  to  be  done  after  that.- 

Now,  just  a  word  about,  the  difficulties  in  which 
we  are.  It  is  said  that  we  are  dividing  on  a  small 
matter.  Well,  Mr.  President.  If  you  look  at  this 
question  of  salaries  as  applicable  to  the  clerks— -I 
am  not  now  speaking  about  the  compensation  of 
tho  Members  of  Congress;  but.  taking  this  rule 
as  it  applies  to  the  clerks,  it  is  so  small  that  it 
seems  to  me  standing  by  itself,  it  would  be  so  im¬ 
material— the  mere  dust  in  tho  balance — that  you 
could  hardly  suppose  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  would  accord  it  a  moment’s  consideration, 
as  surely  they  would  not.  Now,  what  is  the  trou¬ 
ble?  How  much  do  Senators  suppose  is  in  contro¬ 
versy  on  that  simple  question  of  salaries  touching 
the  clerks?  I  see  it  is  stated  in  the  Record  this 
morning  that  it  all  amounts  to  only  $250,030,  or 
less  than  $300,000.  That  shows  how  trivial  a  thing 
it.  is  in  the  way  of  economy  to  touch  those  salaries; 
and  that  show's  how  right  we  were  in  our  belief 
that  the  reduction  of  salaries  fixed  in  1854,  when 
the  purchasing  power  of  the  dollar  was  twice  what 
it  is  now,  particularly  as  applied  to  this  city,  Is 
not  the  real  point,  and  that  this  effort  is  not  in  the 
interest  of  a  just  economy.  I  do  not  mean  to  im¬ 
peach  the  motives  of  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives.  I  have  said  heretofore  and  J.  repeat  now 
that  they  think  this  can  be  done.  I  give  them  all 
credit;  but  I  do  not  believe  it  ought  to  be  done, 
nor  do  I  believe  it  can  be  proved  to  anybody  that 
a  crusade  upon  salaries  fixed  in  1864  under  those 
circumstances  and  never  touched  by  the  party  in 
power  down  to  this  day  is  a  ma  tter  of  public  ne¬ 
cessity,  or  that  there  is  any  public  justice  in  the 
attempt  to  raid  upon  the  cierks  in  these  depart¬ 
ments  for  any  such  purpose.  It  is  too  Insignificant 
altogether  for  the  consideration  of  statesmen. 

Now  let  us  see  the  order  of  events  by  which  it 
comes  to  pass.  The  first  event  of  which  this  is  the 
outgrowth  was  the  attempt  of  a  committee  to 
gather  unto  itself  all  the  power  of  legislation  upon 
an  appropriation  bill.  There  is  where  it  began; 
and  only  in  this  light  can  you  see  the  significance 
of  what  has  been  attempted,  and  only  in  this  light 
can  you  see  the  Importance  ©f  performing  our 
duty  to  this  Senate  to-day  and  to  the  country  to¬ 
day  on  the  whole  question  ©f  the  salaries. 

I)o  not  understand  that  I  am  here  to  invoke  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  to  stand  firm  as  to 
the  change  of  a  salary  of  a  clerk  from  $1,400  to 
$1,360.  That  is  not  a  subject  of  very  great  gravity 
in  my  mind,  but  the  principle  that  Hes  behind  it, 
the  authority  that  demands  the  right  to  do  it  as 
against  the  Senate,  covers  the  whole  field  of  leg¬ 
islation  and.  annihiJatestbe  Senate  of  the  United 
States  in  principle.  That  Is  what  it  is.  Now  let 
us  follow  this  out  a  little  and  we  shall  see  the 
consequence  of  this  change  which  we  resist,  of 
this  undertaking  to  tell  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  how  much  shall  be  appropriated  and  what 
laws  shall  be  changed.  Uet  us  see  what  has  been 
done  on  the  line  of  the  change  of  the  public  ser¬ 
vice  through  a  Committee  of  Appropriations  sim¬ 
ply,  whose  funotions  are  rather  administrative 
than  legislative.  This  Is  not  the  only  instance. 
Other  things  in  their  order  came  up  on  other 
bills. 

On  the  bill  appropriating  for  the  Army  is  a  re¬ 
organization  of  the  whole  Army  of  the  United 
States,  a  thing  so  delicate,  a  thing  so  compli¬ 
cated,  a  thing  so  critical  in  all  its  relations,  as 
was  well  explained  by  my  honorable  friend  from 


Illinois,  the  chairman  of  the  Military  Committee, 
[Mr.  Ho»an,1  that  it  would  take  months  of  the 
time  of  those  best  acquainted  with  the  subject  to 
comprehend  it;  and  yet  the  whole  thing  is  pro¬ 
posed  to  be  done  upon  an  appropriation  bill.  And, 
Mr.  President,  just  in  harmony  with  the  purpose — 
just  in  harmony  with  the  act— for  I  will  not  talk 
of  motives  or  purposes— what  do  you  find?  It  is 
proclaimed  that  the  army  is  altogether  out  of 
place  in  our  system.  Yes,  sir;  that  has  gone  to 
the  country  absolutely  that  the  Army  of  the 
United  States  is  utterly  out  of  place  in  our  sys¬ 
tem,  and  one  honorable  gentleman  has  said  here 
or  somewhere  else  that  he  believes  it  is  not  only 
useless  but  on  the  whole  it  is  pernicious  In  this 
country;  that  all  we  needed,  he  believed,  was 
about  three  regiments  of  cavalry,  and  those  snou  Id 
be  under  the  direction  of  the'  Interior  Depart¬ 
ment,  to  guard  the  frontiers  against  the  Indians. 
See  what  a  predicament  we  should  he  in.  Abolish 
all  the  Army  except  three  regiments  and  cover 
them  into  the  Interior  Department;  and  then 
abolish  the  Indian  Bureau  and  cover  that  into 
the  Army!  That  is  the  condition  In  which  these 
bills  come  to  us. 

Then,  following  out  the  same  policy,  you  had  a 
reorganization  of  the  Navy  to  some  extent,  and 
then  you  had  an  abolition,  absolute  and  unquali¬ 
fied,  of  the  Indian  Bureau,  and  then  you  had  a 
repeal  of  th«  enforcement  act.  Think  of  that! 
You  had  a  repeal  on  an  appropriation  bill 
of  the  enforcement  act  and  of  the  election 
laws,  and  in  consequence  of  that,  of  course  you 
had  a  large  reduction  of  the  expenditures  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  maintenance  of  those  acts. 

Then  again,  as  if  the  extravagance  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  was  so  extreme  that  no  branch  of  the 
public  service  could  be  omitted,  you  had  an  en¬ 
tire  revision  of  the  diplomatic  and  consular  rela¬ 
tions  of  this  country.  The  salaries  of  this  service 
were  established  In  1856,  resting  upon  the  basis  of 
1856.  Now  the  expenses  of  living  are  increased 
very  largely  over  the  expenses  of  living  at  that 
day  in  all  quarters  of  the  world,  and  everybody 
who  knows  much  about  our  foreign  affairs  knows 
that  we  pay  our  diplomats  much  less  than  any 
nation  at  all  comparable  with  us  as  a  power. 
That  must  all  be  revised  and  reduced,  as  if  we 
stood  in  the  presence  of  some  overpowering 
exigency! 

Mr.  President,  I  have  said  all  I  care  to  say 
j  about,  the  pernicious  policy  of  /undertaking  to 
j  gather  into  an  appropriation  hill  the  legislative 
i  functions  of  Congress  and  to  insist  upon  enforcing 
i  that  upon  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  I 
know,  as  everybody  knows  here,  that  we  hake 
been  accustomed  from  time  to  time,  on  the  one 
side  and  on  the  other,  to  propose  alterations  in  the 
statutes  of  the  country  upon  appropriation  bills. 
That  bag  been  done,  and  that  will  be  done,  but 
it  always  implies  of  course  the  consent  of  both 
sides.  Where  an  amendment  of  a  statute  is  pro¬ 
posed  by  one  side  and  the  other  side  dissents,  the 
party  proposing  is  the  Innovating  party,  and  so 
far  as  1  know  In  the  whole  history  of"  the  country 
the  Innovating  party  always  retires.  If  the  Sen¬ 
ate,  for  instance,  proposes  a  material  change  In 
the  law  upon  an  appropriation  bill  or  upon  any 
other  bill,  but  particularly  upon  an  appropriation 
bill,  which  the  House  of  Representatives  does  not 
see  fit  to  accede  to,  it  is  the  bound  en  duty  of  the 
Senate  tp  retire  from  it.  The  law  still  remains, 
and  is  the  law  of  the  land,  here  as  everywhere 
else.  That  is  all  I  meant  to  say,  and  that  is  all  I 
did  say. 

I  hope,  therefore,  nay  honorable  friend  from 
Ohio  will  not  think  it  is  quite  right  for  him  to  say 
that  I  have  arraigned  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tive*  as  a  revolutionary  body.  Nothing  was  further 
from  my  purpose,  and  nothing  was  further  from 
anything  I  said..  I  repeat,  Mr.  President,  that 
we  are  not  quarreling  or  dividing  (dividing  is  a 
better  word,  I  withdraw  the  other)  upon  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  salaries  of  fourth-class  clerks,  fifth- 
class  clerks,  sixth-class  clerks,  or  what  not.  We 
are  dividing  upon  the  general  power  undertaken 
to  he  exercised  against  the  Senate  to  require  it  to 
receive  whatever  appropriation  the  House  of  Rep¬ 
resentatives  sees  fit  to  send  to  it,  accompanied  by 
whatever  change  of  the  law  it  sees  fit  also  to  send. 

Mr.  President,  I  said  that  I  believed  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Appropriations  on  the  part  of  the  Sen- 


ate  had  from  the  beginning  been.  disposed  to  meet 
the  House  of  Representatives  in  a  spirit  of  candor 
and  fairness,  appreciating  their  motives  and  will¬ 
ing  to  cut  down  the  public  service  to  the  lowest 
point  practicable.  That  is  my  belief,  and  1  think 
the  unanimous  feeling  of  the  Committee  on  Ap¬ 
propriations. 

I  now  purpose  to  tell  the  Senate  exactly  what 
we  have  done  and  what  has  been  realized,  what 
the  House  of  Representatives  has  done  for  the 
public  service  in  the  way  of  reduction  and  what 
the  amount  ol  reductions  on  the  part  of  the  Sen¬ 
ate  has  been,  and  how  the  public  service  is  left 
by  its  action. 

I  hope  the  Senate  will  give  me  their  attention 
on  this  subject,  because  1  think  they  will  be  sur¬ 
prised  to  see  how  near  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives  and  the  Senate  really  stand  upon  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  appropriations  for  this  year.  There  is 
an  impression  ki  the  country,  as  there  is  here  and 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  that  the  Senate 
has  stood  obstructing  the  reductions  of  expendi¬ 
tures. 

The  House  of  Representatives  say  to  the  coun¬ 
try  that  we  are  supporting  a  very  redundant  ser¬ 
vice  ;  that  it  is  plethoric,  that  it  needs  to  be 
curbed,  to  be  pruned.  In  many  respects  that  is 
true;  hut  I  think  I  am  authorized  to  say  that  a 
wrong  impression  has  prevailed  about  this  ser¬ 
vice,  and  it  is  time  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  addressed  itself  to  a  considers  tion  of  the 
subject.  In  the  last  three  years  we  have  reduced 
this  very  service  about  which  so  much  complaint 
is  made  $33,000,000. 

Whoever  supposes  that  tho  Senate  ef  the  United 
States  has  been  redundant  upon  this  question  of 
appropriations,  year  in  and  year  out,  has  a  total 
misapprehension  oi  the  labors  and  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  the  Senate  ©f  the  United  States. 

In  the  first  place,  and  I  mention  it  not  particu¬ 
larly  to  criticise,  it  is  said  that  the  House  of  Rep¬ 
resentatives  have  reduced  by  their  bills  over  the 
appropriations  of  last  year  $89,000,000.  I  will  have 
very  little  to  say  about  that,  except  that  appar¬ 
ently  it  would  seem  to  be  true;  that  is  to  say,  as¬ 
suming  that  the  amount  of  the  appropriations 
last  year  was  in  round  numbers  $177,000,000,  as  it 
was.  My  understanding  of  It,  which  1  get  from  a 
careful  examination  of  the  bills,  is  that  the  bills 
as  they  passed  the  Senate  reduced  the  appropri¬ 
ations  over  those  of  last  year  $22,000,000.  The 
difference,  then,  between  us  would  seem  to  be  that 
between  $22,000,000  and  $39,000^000.  I  do  not  speak 
with  entire  accuracy,  but  1  speak  with  approxi¬ 
mate  accuracy.  How,  how  shall  we  account  for 
that  difference? 

In  order  to  see  whether  that  reduction  of  $39,000,- 
000  is  really  what  it  seems  to  be,  it  is  necessary 
that  there  should  bo  some  analysis  of  the  appro¬ 
priations  on  the  part  oi  the  House.  In  the  appro¬ 
priation  bills  of  last  year  there  was  a  deficiency 
of  $4,000,000,  and  in  making  this  estimate  of  $39,- 
000,000  the  House  inadvertently  reckoned  that  in 
as  a  reduction  of  the  expenses  of  this  year.  Of 
course, -That  should  not  be  counted  in.  That  would 
reduce  their  expenditure  to  $35,000,000.  Then 
they  have  re-appropriated  balances,  a  thing  quite 
unprecedented  as  a  general  appropriation;  that  is 
to  say,  starting  upon  a  career  of  economy,  start¬ 
ing  upon  the  idea  of  making  a  large  reduction  of 
the  public  expenditures  apparent  to  the  public, 
they  count  in,  In  the  first*  place,  the  deficiency 
bill  of  last  year,  which  does  not  belong  to  this 
year  at  all  because  it  is  not  a  reduction  anywhere; 
then  they  re-appropriate  balances,  and  they  do 
not  count  those  as  an  appropriation  at  all:  that  is 
to  say,  balances  due  from  this  service  of  the  last 
fiscal’  year.  Instead  of  making  a  direct  appro¬ 
priation  out  of  the  Treasury  they  re-appropriate 
that  balance. 

Mr.  WEST.  Without  mentioning  the  amount. 

l\Ir.  MORRILL,  of  Maine.  Without  mention¬ 
ing  the  amount.  Tnat  does  not  go  in  the  appro¬ 
priation,  and  their  appropriation  seems  to  be  less 
by  so  much  as  are  those  unexpended  balances  of 
the  last  year.  1  have  not  gone  into  those.  I  do  not 
know  but  that  some  of  my  colleagues  on  the  com¬ 
mittee  have;  I  have  not.  1  have  seen  it  esti¬ 
mated  elsewhere  to  have  been  five  millions  in  all. 
The  whole  ol  the  re-appropriation  is  put  at  five 
millions.  If  you  deduct  that,  then  what?  That 
brings  it  down  to  $30,000,000;  that  is  to  say,  they 


bar#  reduced  tho  appropriations  tklg  year  from 
those  of  last  year  $30,060,000.  Then  where  do  we 
stand?  The  Senate  have  conceded  to  the  House 
of  Representatives  within  $5,000,000.  That  is  not 
bad.  I  am  inclined  to  think  1  shall  surprise  many 
of  my  honorable  friends  here  when  1  state  this 
fact.  I  am  now  undertaking  to  justify  the  action 
of  the  Senate  and  tho  Senate  committee.  1  will 
show  you  by  and  by  that  In  some  respects  we  have 
done  this  very  reluctantly.  1  think  it  has  been 
overdone;  but  it  has  been  done  in  the  spirit  of 
concession  to  the  House  of  Representatives.  1 
think  the  House  ol  Representatives  have  exacted 
more  than  they  were  authorized  to  exact  of  us  in 
just  public  economy. 

My  judgment  is  that  It  will  be  found  when  the 
year  expires  that  by  reason  of  these  reductions 
very  large  deficiencies  will  be  required,  and  that 
is  the  way  they  will  be  made  up.  We  shall  get 
through  this  year;  we  shall  get  over  this  particu¬ 
lar  occasion,  and  when  we  come  to  reflective  days 
in  the  future  we  shall  see  that  we  have  struck 
the  service  down  below  its  demands,  and  shall  be 
obliged  to  make  appropriations  for  deficiencies  to 
no  inconsiderable  extent. 

Now  let  us  see  how  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives  manage  to  reduce  the  expenditures— rather 
the  appropriations.  That  must  be  interesting  to 
us  all.  How  do  they  make  the  appropriations  of 
this  year  fall  so  much  below  the  appropriations 
of  last  year?  I  have  already  remarked  that  in 
the  first  pi&ce  they  got  rid  of  the  Indian  Bureau; 
in  the  second  place  they  went  at  the  foreign  ser¬ 
vice;  in  the  third  place*they  went  at  the  Army— 
they  did  not  want  any  Army;  and  in  several  other 
particulars  they  Interfered  with  the  publio  ser¬ 
vice.  But  ooming  down  now  to  that  service  which 
is  not  fixed  and  certain  by  law.  there  is  where  the 
innovation  begins;  and  what  did  they  do?  1  will 
show  you  how  they  managed  to  reduce  In  the  sun¬ 
dry  olvil  bill.  The  sundry  civil  bill  of  last  year 
was  $29,469,85 5.  The  House  [  appropriated 
$15,256,731.32  in  this  year’s  bill.  The  sundry  civil 
bill  is  well  understood  by  the  Senate  to  mean  that 
which  covers  all  the  outlying  service  in  great 
variety,  and  the  House  ol  Representatives  reduced 
that  $i4, 000.000.  How  were  they  able  to  do  that? 
Did  they  nave  an  intelligent  appreciation,  a 
solicitous  regard  for  the  service? 

Lot  us  see  how  they  accomplished  it.  I  will 
give  you  some  of  the  items.  It  will  be  too  tedious 
lor  you  to  listen  to  a  detail  of  the  whole,  but  1 
will  give  you  some  as  a  sample.  There  are  two 
ways  of  reducing  expenses.  Everybody  under¬ 
stands  that.  If  your  Housekeeping  has  become 
very  expensive  this  year  you  will  sell  off  your  car¬ 
riages,  you  will  dismiss  your  servants,  you  will 
break  up  a  variety  of  things  so  as  to  curtail  ex¬ 
penses.  Now  the  House  of  Representatives 
adopted  two  methods:  first,  to  curtail  the  salaries 
in  the  way  of  compensation;  secondly,  to  dispense 
with  certain  branches  of  the  public  service.  The 
first  item  we  come  to,  to  account  lor  this  reduc¬ 
tion  in  the  sundry  civil  bill,  is  in  regard  to  navy 
yards.  We  appropriate  annually  for  the  support 
ol  the  navy  yards  from  one  million  to  a  million 
and  a  half  of  dollars  ordinarily;  latterly,  a  little 
less,  about  a  million  or  a  million  and  a  quarter. 

Mr.  THURMAN.  Are  those  appropriations 
made  In  the  sundry  civil  bill? 

Mr.  MORRILL.,  of  Maine.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  sun¬ 
dry  civil  bill. 

Mr,  THURMAN.  Is  that  tho  proper  place  for 

them  ? 

Mr.  MORRILL,  of  Maine.  Yes,  sir;  all  that 
outlying  service  goes  into  the  sundry  civil  hill:  it 
is  usual  there,  and  there  It  was  not  found  this 
year,  but  was  put  in  by  the  Senate.  That  service 
covers  all  expenditures  for  all  the  navy  yards.  I 
do  not  mean  the  appropriations  for  improvements, 
but  for  the  civil  force  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
organization  of  the  navy  yards.  What  did  they 
do  with  that?  Left  it  out  altogether. 

Oome  to  another  item,  tho  question  of  fortifica¬ 
tions.  The  estimate  for  fortifications  this  year 
was  $3,315,000.  What  did  they  do  with  that?  Ap¬ 
propriated  $315,000;.  and  what  about  the  $3,000,000 
omitted?  What  do  we  do?  We  accepted  their 
action.  Why?  It  was  discretionary  with  the 
House  of  Representatives  whether  they  would  do 
it  or  not,  and  it  was  obvious  enough  that  they  did 
not  intend  to  do  such  a  thing  as  that;  and  that  is 


a  question  over  which,  either  fersiKch  of  Congress 
has  control,  particularly  these  outlying  matters. 
Will  not  the  Senate  perceive  how  easy  it  is  to  re¬ 
trench,  to  reform  and  to  reduce  if  you  neglect  the 
publio  service  altogether  in  whole  or  In  part? 
That  is  the  way  to  account  for  it. 

Now,  what  is  to  he  said  about  that?  It  is  a  pub¬ 
lic  service  omitted,  is  i^wot?  When  does  it  come 
back  to  us?  Next  year,' of  course.  It  is  a  service 
omitted;  I  speak'of  the  fortifications.  As  to  these 
navy-yards,  does  anybody  suppose  that  they  are 
to  exist  without  an  appropriation? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  Is  there  no  appropriation  fer 
repairs  or  painting,  or  anything  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  S  AEG  ENT.  Not  a  dollar. 

Mr.  MORRILL,  ef  Maine.  Then,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  another  item  is  the  judicial  expenses  of  the 
Government,  amounting  to  a  little  over  $3,000,000 
now.  They  have  been  increased  of  late  years. 
The  judicial  expenses  of  the  Government  have 
been  increased  from  various  considerations.  1 
will  not  stop  to  state  them.  They  were  appropri¬ 
ated  for  last  year  at  something'  like  three  mil¬ 
lions,  perhaps  a  little  over.  Thereduction  on  that 
was  $834,250.  Why?  They  do  not  want  so  much 
judicial  proceedings  this  year.  That  is  obvious, 
and  1  think  1  am  authorized  to  make  the  remark 
irorn  the  fact  that  they  repealed  certain  laws 
which  involved  large  expenditures  in  the  way  of 
judicial  proceedings;  and  that  may  be  consistent. 
So  you  may  go  on  and  enumerate.  If  you  are 
disposed  to  give  up  the  public  service,  there  is  no 
end  to  your  retrenchment.  But  the  question  for 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is,  What  does 
the  public  service  demand?  That  is  the  question 
that  comes  home  to  every  one  of  us,  and  that  ig 
the  paramount  question  wherever  it  arises. 

Further  on  we  come  to  the  Court  of  Claims. 
Has  the  Court  of  Claims  any  claims  on  Congress? 
We  established  the  Court  of  Claims;  we  invite 
suitors  there;  we  inspire  the  confidence  that  they 
will  have  justice  done  them  there;  and  the  legiti¬ 
mate  inference  would  be  that  we  would  pay  the 
judgments  if  they  are  against  us.  Weli,  they  are 
estimated  to  have  rendered  judgments  to  the 
amount  of  $2,000,000  against  the  United  States, 
but  not  a  farthing  is  appropriated  in  the  bill,  not 
a  penny.  What  becomes  oi  the  Court  of  Claims 
or  what  becomes  of  the  judgments  of  suitors? 
Their  payment  awaits  what?  It  awraits  the  good 
favor  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  appro¬ 
priate  money  to  pay  the  judgments  which  the 
suitors  having  been  invited  into  the  court  have 
obtained  against  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  That  is  $2,000,000  more.  I  believe  in  al¬ 
most  every  instance  those  judgments  have  passed 
through  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  "States 
and  have  the  sanction  of  it.  Now,  it  is  an  easy 
thing  to  save  money  in  that  way.  Any  man 
almost  in  his  private  affairs  can  be  very  saving  if 
he  will  pocket  other  people’s  money  and  then 
refuse  to  pay  his  debts  and  ne  can  get  immunity 
from  it.  That  is  one  way  to  reduce  expenditures 
— an  easy  way! 

Then  again  there  is  the  item  of  public  buildings, 
and  a  saving  of  $i, 987, 160  is  made  over  last  year 
for  public  buildings.  Well,  I  agree  that  that  is  a 
field  where  there  is  the  exercise  of  a  discretion 
undoubtedly,  and  undoubtedly  this  is  one  of  the 
ears  when  a  sound  discretion  should  be  exercised; 
ut  my  own  belief  about  it  is,  considering  these 
public  buildings  as  a  necessity,  and  considering 
the  money  spent  ip  them  an  investment  which  is 
not  lost,  that  we  have  out  .them  down  unreasona¬ 
bly.  Yet  the  House’ thought  otherwise,  and  the 
Senate  consented.  I  believe  we  objected  in  one 
or  two  cases;  St.  Louis  was  one;  we  generally  con¬ 
curred  with  the  House.  What  has  been  saved? 
It  is  said,  and  the  idea  is  given  out,  of  large  sav¬ 
ing  in  public  expenditures.  Are  we  not  going  to 
finish  these  buildings?  Of  course,  we  are.  If  we 
do  not  finish  them  this  year,  is  it  money  absolutely 
saved?  That  depends  upon  whether  you  can  sell 
the  buildings  for  what  they  cost,  and  want  to  sell 
them;  hut  if  they  are  to  stand  there  to  waste,  it  is 
not  money  saved,  it  is  not  a  just  economy  and  a 
just  administration  of  public  affairs  at  all.  I  am 
accounting,  remember  now,  Mr.  President,  for 
the  reductions  this  year  from  the  expenditures 
and  appropriations  last  year. 

Now  I  come  to  the  Bureau  of  Engraving  and 
Printing,  $800,000.  That  is  saved  by  the  ordinary 


operations  ®f  th©  publ!®  nmvle*.  W*  a#t  £«- 
ing  ae  much  printing,  and  1  hope  we  shall  do  less. 
The  good  day  indicated  by  the  resumption  act,  by 
the  abolition  of  note  printing  and  the  introduc¬ 
tion  of  silver,  enables  us  to  do  that.  It  will  ena¬ 
ble  us  to  do  many  more  things,  and  when  it  is 
consummated  our  finances  will  be  in  a  much  bet¬ 
ter  condition  than  they  are  at  present. 

Another  item  is  as  to  the  surveys  of  the  public 
lands.  Usually  we  appropriate  something  likea 
million  or  a  little  more  than  a  million  dollars  to 
survey  the  public  lands.  Our  domain  is  immense, 
as  you  know.  It  has  been  considered  a  good  policy 
to  survey  the  public  lands.  Heretofore  I  believe 
without  exception,  during  the  whole  series  of 
years  that  I  know  anything  about  the  Senate,  we 
have  thought  it  one  of  the  proper  things  to  be 
done  to  open  the  public  domain,  to  survey  the 
public  domain,  and  last  year  we  appropriated 
about  $1,000,000  for  that  purpose.  This  year  it  is 
thought  good  economy  to  save  $630,000  on  that, 
and  so  for  that  particular  item  there  is  that  much 
less  than  was  appropriated  last  year. 

But  I  shall  weary  the  patience  of  th©  Senate,  I 
am  sure,  if  I  goon  with  these  items.  1  give  you 
these  samples.  This  is  the  way  these  appropria¬ 
tions  have  been  reduced.  In  many  instances  1  ap¬ 
prove  them;  in  many  instances,  1  am  sorry  to  say, 
I  do  not  to  the  extent  proposed;  but  where  the 
service  has  been  flexible,  where  the  House  of 
Representatives  has  a  right  to  exercise  judgment, 
in  regard  to  that,  in  every  instance,  the  Commit¬ 
tee  on  Appropriations  on  the  part  of  the  Senate 
have  made  ample  concessions;  and  we  are  not 
dividing  on  any  of  them. 

Now  let  me  refer  to  one  other  Item  which  is  of 
a  class  omitted  entirely  from  the  public  service, 
and' goes  into  this  estimate.  We  appropriated 
last  year  $1,060,800  toward  the  government  of  the 
District  of  Columbia.  I  would  not  like  to  enter 
upon  that  subject;  but  that  we  have  some  obliga¬ 
tions  to  the  District  of  Columbia  I  think  is  ap¬ 
parent  from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  capital  of  the 
nation;  we  have  public  buildings  and  grounds 
here,  we  own  in  the  way  of  valuation  at  least  one 
half  of  all  the  property  here,  and  In  the  end  we 
shall  have  much  more  than  one  half  of  all  that  is 
or  ever  will  be  here.  We  have  an  interest  in  it. 
That  we  have  no  obligations  toward  it,  for  myself, 
Ihave  never  supposed.  I  have  believed  that  we 
have  obligations  to  it.  There  is  an  administra¬ 
tion  here,  civil  and  political,  and  we  owe  some¬ 
thing  to  it.  The  appropriations  for  it  last  year 
were  $1,060,003,  not  a  penny  this.  What  is  to  be 
done?  1  appeal  to  the  Senate  now  whether  that 
is  a  right  thing  to  do  in  regard  to  the  District  of 
Columbia.  I  appeal  to  the  Senate  whether  they 
believe  there  is  a  condition  of  things  in  this  coun¬ 
try  which  justifies  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  in  neglecting  altogether  any  contribution 
to  the  government  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 
That  is  the  way  to  save  money  apparently;  that 
is  the  wray  to  keep  down  an  appropriation  bill; 
and  does  anybody  suppose  that  the  District  of 
Columbia  will  have  no  claim  on  us  in  the  future? 
Is  there  any  Senator  here  who  expects  to  be  here 
next  December  who  does  not  expect  to  hear  the 
clamor  come  up  from  the  District  of  Columbia  for 
help?  Does  anybody  here  believe  that  there  is 
any  saving  in  leaving  it  out  now?  For  myself  I 
do'not  believe  it.  The  Senate  did  non-coneur  in 
this  matter  so  far  as  to  appropriate  $500,000,  the 
fate  of  which  1  have  not  learned;  but  I  have  said 
sufficient  upon  that  branch  of  the  subjeot. 

1  wish  now  to  say  one  thing  more  as  to  what 
the  Senate  has  done  approximately,  and  I  shall 
relieve  the  patience  of  the  Senate.  I  think  it 
necessary  that  1  should  inform  the  Senate, 
because  we  are  supposed  to  have  been  a  little 
disposed  to  hold  hack  from  what  the  House  of 
Representatives  has  done  in  a  spirit  of  economy. 

I  have  already  stated  that  the  sundry  civil  ap¬ 
propriation  bill  last  year  was  $29,000,000  in  round 
numbers.  The  House  made  it  $15,000,000  this  year 
in  round  numbers,  and  the  Senate  made  it  $19,000,- 
000.  The  Senate  you  will  see  appropriates  $10,- 
000,000  less  than  it  did  last  year.  On  what  ground 
do  they  do  that?  It  will  he  said  at  once,  “on  the 
ground  that  you  are  not  so  expensive  this  year;” 
and  therefore  it  becomes  neoessary  for  us  to  con¬ 
sider  the  elements  that  go  into  this  reduction  of 


tk«  Senate  bilt  f r*m  $29J,$W,(K#  te  & 

reduction  of  $io,ooe,ooo. 

Without  specifying  details,  seeing  the  purpose 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  *  to  make  the 
greatest  possible  economy  in  their  judgment,  and 
being  disposed  to  meet  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives"  upon  that  basis,  which  I  have  already  con¬ 
sidered  somewhat  at  lengt  h  in  stating  their  side  of 
it,  we  have  reduced  the  public  service  beyond  what 
we  believe  it  ought  to  be.  That  is  the  wav  to  account 
for  it-,  and  that  is  the  way  it  stands.  I  will  enu¬ 
merate  some  of  the  branches  of  the  service  where 
we  have  made  concessions  which  will  ha  ve  to  be 
made  good  by  an  appropriation  by  a.  deficiency 
lull  next  year  as  certain  as  the  service  exists. 

The  revenue-cutter  service  has  been  reduced 
$250,000.  1  do  not  think  it  ought  to  be  reduced  a 
dollar.  It  is  that  sort  of  service  that  has  a  per¬ 
fect  establishment.  You  cannot  reduce  it  without 
injuring  its  efficiency.  But  we  yielded  to  that. 

Take  the  judicial  expenses  of  the  Government, 
$83S.OOO  reduction.  Upon  any  basis  that  we  know 
anything  about,  upon  the  representation  of  the 
Department  of  Justice,  the  appropriation  is  too 
low;  but  between  this  ana  December  what  they 
have  got  is  enough,  and  when  December  comes 
the  Department  of  Justice  will  raise  its  voice  to 
justice  for  its  needs,  and  a  deficiency  bill  will  sup¬ 
ply  what  we  now  leave  out. 

Now  as  to  the  public  buildings;  we  put  them  in 
last  year  and  would  have  been  glad  to  put  them 
in  this  year;  but  out  of  deference  to  the  House  we 
agreed  to  leave  them  out. 

Then  you  come  to  the  Washington  Aqueduct, 
-•790,000;  and  then  to  the  District  of  Columbia, 
$1,060,000,  to  which  I  have  already  referred:  we 
leave  that  out  except  as  to  $500,000,  the  fate  of 
which,  I  say,  we  do  not  know. 

In  this  way  it  will  be  seen  that  I  explain  on,  be¬ 
half  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  or  the 
•'ena  te  how  it  is  that  we  consent  to  reduce  the 
appropriations  in  the  sundry  civil  bill  from  $29,- 
000,000  to  $19,000,000,  and  are  still  perfectly  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  idea  that  the  public  service  is  not 
what  it  is  supposed  to  have  been. 

One  other  observation  and  I  shall  have  done, 
it  is  said  that  what  we  have  witnessed  since  this 
Congress  began  is  all  in  the  interest  of  an  exigent 
public  necessity;  that  the  deficiency  of  our  reve¬ 
nue  estimates  demands  all  that  is  being  done  and 
much  more  besides.  I  think  it  was  enunciated 
(>n  the  floor  of  the  Senate  in  that  kind  of  emphasis 
which  I  was  complained  of  exercising  by  my  hon¬ 
orable  friend  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Thurman,]— I 
would  remind  him  that  he  sometimes  gets  cm-' 
piiatic— that  it  was  obvious  that  we  must  retrench, 
or  tax,  or  borrow  to  preserve  the  public  credit. 
It  was  a  phrase  so  compact  and  so  easy  of  trans¬ 
portation  that  it  went  everywhere;  and  particu¬ 
larly  as  it  went  from  the  lips  of  my  honorable 
Inend  at  the  time  it  did,  it  made  an  impression 
all  over  the  country  that  we  were  absolutely  in  a 
dilemma  where  we  must  either  tax  or  borrow 


|  money,  or  must  do  some  extraordinary  thing  in 
j  regard  to  expenditures.  Of  course  i  make  no  ob¬ 
jection  to  the  emphasis  of  my  honorable  friend, 
but  to  the  general  statement  I  do. 

Now  vrbat  is  the  fact?  Tbe  late  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  in  his  report  told  us  that  the  re¬ 
ceipts  for  the  next  year  would  be  equal  to  all  tbe 
obligations  of  the  Government,  including  the 
sinking  fund.  I  know,  in  answer  to  that,  it  will 
be  said  that  since  that  time  there  has  been  a  fall¬ 
ing  oflin  the  customs  revenue.  That  is  true;  but 
bow  much?  Not.  above  $6,000,000.  And  do  those 
who  reckon  in  that  way  know  that  the  balances 
saved  from  the  appropriations  of  the  last  year 
nearly  meet  the  deficiencies  up  to  this  time?  That 
is  never  taken  into  account;  nobody  has  even  ob¬ 
served  that  soTar  as  I  know.  Ah,  it  may  be  said 
that  we  appropriated  extravagantly  last  year. 
No,  not  at  all.  Under  the  present  accountability 
of  the  Departments  it  has  become  the  policy  of 
Congress,  and  no  sounder  policy  ever  did  exist,  to 
say  to  these  Departments,  “You  shall  not  spend 
one  dollar  for  anything  except  for  that  lor  which 
it  was  specifically  appropriated.”  Therefore,  it 
will  be  seen  that  It  has  become  the  necessity  of 
Congress  to  appropriate  amply  for  the  service, 
and  the  balance  goes  into  the’ public  Treasury’ 
That  accounts  for  the  latitude  in  some  of  the 
branches  where  appropriations  have  been  made. 
But  what  has  been  the  result?  The  accounta¬ 
bility  under  the  act  of  1870  has  become  so  strict 
and  so  exacting  that  whoever  is  disposed  to  read 
the  estimates,  the  appropriations,  and  tbe  ex¬ 
penditures  of  the  Government,  can  tell  what  they 
are  for  each  year  with  as  much  certainty  as  he 
can  tell  the  state  of  his  own  private  account, 
unless  there  is  fraud  and  forgery  in  the  exhibit. 
Now  what  I  mean  to  say  is  that  the  expenditures 
of  this  year  fall  short  of  last  year  over  $6,000,000. 

As  to  next  year,  the  latest  estimate  that  I 
know  anything  of  from  tbe  Treasury  is:  From 
customs,  $150,000,000;  from  internal  revenue,  $122,- 
000,000;  from  miscellaneous  sources,  $19,000,900; 
making  $291,000,000  in  all.  If  those  receipts  are 
to  be  realized,  and  they  stand  as  against  $303,- 
000,000  last  year,  then  the  revenues  of  this  Gov¬ 
ernment  are  ample  for  all  its  purposes.  Of 
course,  it  does  not  lie  in  human  wisdom  to  say 
with  entire  accuracy  whether  that  will  be  so  or 
not.  General  causes  operate  upon  our  customs 
receipts  and  upon  our  internal  revenue;  but  the 
probability,  from  the  best,  information  the  De¬ 
partment  has  upon  the  subject,  is  that  our  rev¬ 
enues  from  all  sources  will  amount  to  $291,000,- 
000,  which  will  be,  according  to  the  appropria¬ 
tions  of  this  year,  ample  to  meet  all  the  obliga¬ 
tions  of  the  Government,  including  the  sinking 
fund. 

And,  now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  done.  Thank¬ 
ing  the  Senate  for  their  great  consideration  and 
patience,  apologizing  u>  them  for  the  severe  in¬ 
fliction  I  fearl  have  put  upon  them,  and  knowing 
that  I  am  not  likely  to  repeat  it,  I  take  my  leave 
of  the  subject  and  the  Senate. 


I 


•XHok  APioscmracmMSiD  skad.look. 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  O.  t>.  MOETON. 


JXTXi  -ST  7,  1378. 


Mr.  MORTON.  Mr.  President,  the  principle 
involved  In  the  discussion  this  morning’  and  in  the 
apprehended  dead-lock  between  the  two  bodies  is 
one  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  independence 
and  character  of  this  body,  and  it  is  one  which,  if 
carried  out,  involves  the  existence  of  any  form  of 
government,  t  wo  Houses  Instead  of  one  consti¬ 
tuting  its  legislative  department.  Has  the  House 
of  Representatives  a  right  to  say  to  the  Senate, 
“We  will  refuse  to  make  appropriations  which 
the  general  laws  of  the  land  require  unless  you 
will  consent  to  the  alteration  of  those  laws;  we 
will  refuse  to  make  an  appropriation  unless  you 
consent  that  some  law,  which  is  obnoxious  to  one 
party  or  to  the  House,  shall  be  changed  or  re¬ 
pealed?”  That  proposition  involves  the  principle 
of  nullification,  pure  and  simple;  it  involves  the 
precise  position  taken  by  the  State  of  South  Caro¬ 
lina  in  1831  and  1832.  South  Carolina  then  said  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States:  “Thetaritf 
law  is  unconstitutional,  and  it  is  obnoxious;  unless 
ou  repeal  that  law  we  will  nullify  it.”'  Now, 
as  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  one 
hand,  or  the  Senate  on  the  other,  a  right  to  say 
to  the  other  House,  “A  general  law  is  obnoxious 
or  it  is  unconstitutional  in  our  view;  unless  you 
consent  to  repeal  or  to  modify  that  law  we  will 
nullify  it  by  withholding  all  the  appropriations 
necessary,  to  carry  into  operation  the  existing 
law?”  Whenever  either  House  takes  that  posi¬ 
tion,  it  is  nulithcation;  it  is  revolution,  and  you 
can  make  nothing  else  out  of  it. 

Mr.  BOGY.  That  is  to  say,  you  mean  that  the 
Senate  nullities  the  action  of  the  House. 

Mr.  MORTON.  No,  sir;  X  say  if  either  Horse 
puts  itself  into'  that  position,  that  is  nullih  v.  Jon. 
For  example,  here  is  a  general  law  on  the  subject 
of  the  tariff!  Suppose  the  Senate  should  say  to 
the  House— to  avoid  giving  odense  I  will  put  it 
In  that  form— suppose  the  Senate  says  to  the 
House,  “This  tariff  law  is  wrong,”  and,  when  the 
appropriation  bill  comes,  attaches  an  amendment 
to  it  repealing  certain  sections  of  the  tariff  law, 
the  House  does  not  agree  to  that  amendment, 
therefore  the  Senate  says,  “If  you  do  not  consent 
to  this  modification  of  the  tariff  law  we  will  with¬ 
hold  all  appropriations  for  custom-houses,  for  the 
collection  of  the  revenue:  we  will  nullify  the 
whole  law  on  the  subject  of  collecting  duties  upon 
imports.”  If  the  Senate  puts  itself  in  that  posi¬ 
tion,  the  Senate  is  a  revolutionary  and  a  nullify¬ 
ing  body,  and  cannot  justify  its  action  for  one 
moment;  or  if  the  House  puts  itself  in  that  posi¬ 
tion,  it  assumes  the  attitude  of  a  revolutionary  or 
nullifying  body. 

Take,  for  example,  the  Army  bill.  Suppose 
the  House  attaches  to  the  Army  bill  a  provision 
repealing  an  election  law%  a  law  providing  for'the 
purity  of  elections;  the  Senate  will  not  consent  to 
the  repeal  oi  the  election  law;  the  House  says, 
therefore,  “We  will  make  no  appropriations  for 
the  Army.”  It  says  to  us,  “Repeal  the  election 
law  or  we  will  strike  down  the  Army.”  That  is 
no  legitimate  argument.  Neither  House  has  a 
ri^ht  to  do  anything  oi  that  kind;  that  is  the  end 
of  a  government  by  two  Houses  instead  of  one. 
We  should  then  be  driven  to  go  back  to  the  old 
Roman  Senate,  or  to  the  French  system,  and  have 
but  one  House  instead  of  having  two.  If  the 
House  says:  “You  like  the  election  law  so  well 
you  will  not  repeal  it,  we  will  destroy  the  Army; 
take  your  choice;  take  your  choice  between  giv¬ 
ing  up  the  election  law  or  giving  up  the  Army 
entirely;”  the  House  has  no  right  to  say  that  to 
us;  it  is  the  end  of  governinontif  itdoes.  Whether 
the  election  law  is  right  or  not  is  a  question 
which  the  House  has  a  right  to  present  as  a  sepa¬ 
rate  proposition;  it  is  a  fair  matter  of  discussion 
between  the  two  Houses.  -If  we  cannot  agree  to 
repeal  or  amend  it,  the  law  must  stand.  But 
when  the  House  comes  in  and  says,  “Repeal  that 
or  we  will  destroy  the  Army,”  that  it  is  Illegiti¬ 
mate,  it  is  revolutionary.  It  is  the  old  argument, 
“Your  money  or  your  life.” 

So  iu  regard  to  the  Treasury  Department.  The 
House  says,  “The  Treasury  Department  is  one- 
half  too  large;  it  has  too  many  employees;  now. 
agree  to  reduce  them  one-half  or  ws  wiil  destroy] 
tf~\*  s«  m.U  rwtoo  to 


any  appropriations  at  all  for  the  Department,' 
Has  the  House  a  right  to  do  that  ?  As  to  whether 
?v5e^;era^a,,r  Prov*ding  for  the  organisation  of 
the  Treasury  Department  ought  to  be  amende.; 
is  a  lair  question  for  debate;  but  if  it  is  not 
amended,  it  must  stand;  and  until  it  is  changed  it. 
is  the  duty  of  both.  Houses  to  appropriate  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  requirement®  of  that  law.  But 
suppose  the  House  says,  “The  Treasury  Depart 
rnent  is  too  large;  it  is  too  costly;  reduce  it  one- 
half,  or  we  will  destroy  it.”  Is  that  legitimate; 
is  that  constitutional?  Oaa  you  carry  on  thi-i 
Government  upon  that  principle  at  all?  Cer- 
t&inlv  not. 

Taae  the  case  of  the  Army.  Suppose  It  is  ?>ru 
posed  to  reduce  the  Army  on®  half.  We  do  m,< 
agree  to  that.  The  House  says,  “Then  we  will  ■ 
destroy  the  Army  altogether;  take  one  half  or 
take  none;  you  must  either  take  half  a  loaf  of 
bread  or  take  none.”  Suppose  they  should  say  1“ 
regard  to  the  Navy,  “The  Navy  is  too  large  by 
one  half;  reduce  it  one  half,  or  you  shall  have  no 
Navy  at  all;  we  will  make  no  appropriation  for  a 
single  ship;  we  will  tie  them  up  at  the  docks  to 
rot,  or  we  will  anchor  them  out  in  the  stream  anti 
let  them  sink  gradually.”  I  therefore  appeal  to* 
the  Senate  upon  the  principle  involved  here.  I 
say  that  sort  of  threat,  “Yield  to  our  views  about 
the  election  law,  yield  to  our  views  about  the  size 
of  the  Army,  yield  to  our  views  about  the  cost  oi 
tne  Treasury  Department,  yieid  to  our  views  upon 
this  subject  and  that,  or  if  you  do  not  do  it  we  will 
destroy  the  Government,”  that  argument  is  Hie. 
gitimate,  it  is  unconstitutional. 

If  there  is  a  proposition  on  an  appropriation  bill 
to  change  a  general  law, if  both  Houses  do  not  con¬ 
cur  in  it,  then  tne  House  proposing  it  should 
yield.  In  other  words,  they  have  no  right  under 
the  Constitution  and  under  their  oaths  to  with¬ 
hold  the  necessary  appropriations  because  the 
change  of  a  law  outside  of  these  appropriations  is 
not  conceded.  We  are  now  brought  face  to  faco 
with  that  principle.  If  it  is  proper  for  the  House 
to  say  to  as  “Reduce  your  Army  one  half  or  wo 
will  destroy  it,”  they  then  put  us  in  that  trying- 
position,  and  vre  shonid  be  required  to  argue  with 
ourselves,  “Well,  must  we  yield  up  our  convic¬ 
tions  in  order  to  save  a  part  of  the  Army?”  Has 
one  House  the  right  to  put  the  other  in  that  posi¬ 
tion  ?  Suppose  the  House  says  to  us,  “Yield  up 
your  convictions  about  the  election  law,”  an  out- 
aide  thing  altogether,  affecting  other  matters; 
“yield  that  up  or  we  will  take  sway  from  you  tko 
Army,  we  will  make  no  appropriations  for  it  at 
all,  and  of  course  it  must  fail  to  pieces.”  (Jan  the 
House  say  that  inside  of  constitutional  govern¬ 
ment  ?  I  say  not.  Beware,  then,  of  the  prece¬ 
dent  you  set  in  this  matter.  If  one  House  can 
nullify  a  law  because  the  other  House  does  not 
consent  to  amend  it,  it  is  the  end  of  a  government 
with  two  Houses.  We  should  then  come  back  to 
one  House  only,  where  there  can  be  no  conflict  oi 
that  kind. 

It  is,  then,  Mr.  president,  a  sharp  issue,  and 
there  is  no  dodging  it.  The  simple  question  is, 
whether  we  shall  be  driven  to  a  change  oi  gen¬ 
eral  legislation  by  the  threat  of  destroying  t ha 
Government,  or  of  stopping  the  wheels  of  Gov¬ 
ernment,  or  of  stopping  a  particular  depart¬ 
ment  in  the  Government.''  That  is  the  whole  ques¬ 
tion.  They  can  argue  with  us  on  general  princi¬ 
ples,  persuade  us  that  the  thing  is  wrongj  that  it 
ought  to  be  changed;  but  to  say  to  u.g,  “If  you  do 
not  agree  to  what  we  want,  then  we  will  destroy 
the  whole  thing,”  is  no  argument  addressed  to 
our  reason.  It  Is  simpiy  an  argument  addressee! 
to  our  fears.  We  are,  then,  put  in  the  position  oi 
saying  we  would  rather  yield  on  this  subject  than 
have  the  Government  stop;  we  would  rather  sur¬ 
render  our  judgment  than  to  lose  the  Army  or 
lose  the  Navy,  or  stop  the  wheels  of  the  Treasury 
or  any  other  department  of  the  Government,  it 
does  seem  to  me  that  no  Senator  can  consent  for 
one  moment  to  the  recognition  of  that  principle. 
Wnenever  the  argument  of  destruction  is  ad¬ 
dressed  to  us  we  should  resist  it,  and  we  should 
say  to  those  who  oflor  that  argument  and  take 
mat  position,  “Take  the  consequences  of  your 
revolutionary  md  unconstitutional 


